Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
gethin

D850 released. Nothing to see here, move along

Recommended Posts

I wasn't expecting GH5 level of video features on the D850.  Let's face it, the GH5 is nothing short of a technological marvel.  However, I was happy to see "no crop" 4K on the D850.  Hallelujah!  Canon appears to purposely cripple their DSLRs for video.  Crop on the 5D Mk IV 4K.  No 4K at all on the brand new 6D Mk II.  At least Nikon is finally pushing ahead.  Focus peaking and slo-mo on 1080p is nice, although it would be nice to have that on 4K.  Nikon's codec is very good, and the colors are good.  I'm anxious to see some samples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
5 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Um, it's not about perfection... It's about paying for a full frame camera and expecting a FULL FRAME image!

And the codec is inexcusable.

Depends what type of shooter you are. Personally I like shooting FF for stills, but prefer S35 for video. 

So this type of hybrid config works.. for me.

I guess what I'm trying to say is there always seems to be some kind of compromise when shooting both stills & video on a body.

I'm with you on the MJPEG codec, number one thing holding me back on the 5D4. 

Really hope Sony will hurry up with the A7R/S III now that Canikon/Panasonic/Fuji have laid out their refreshes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand all of the hatred for the 5D Mark IV and its mjpeg codec?

It's a 4:22, all-i video codec that is easily editable on most computers, but it has big file sizes. ProRes has big file sizes. Raw has big file sizes. The GH5, after the update, will have big file sizes.

Where else are you getting a FF stills camera with a S35mm, Cinema 4K, 4:22, Log image, with arguably the best color science around, and definitively the best AF, for $3000?

With all that being said, I hope some of these D850 specs start to trickle down into the lesser models. A 4K D5700 with focus peaking, even if only in 1080p, sounds like a great camera to me. 1080p for the daily grind and some 4K, even cropped, for some novelty shots every now and again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BasiliskFilm said:

Because for video, you might as well buy a micro 4/3 camera, with lenses designed for the format?

With that rationale, why would anyone ever buy an EF BMCC? Or use native Micro 4/3 lenses on a BMPCC or a BMMCC?

Yes less of a crop would be ideal, but it isn't the end of the world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, mercer said:

I don't understand all of the hatred for the 5D Mark IV

Stills camera = 100 times less good than D850 (less dynamic range, less mpx, less good AF system ( and -4ev on the D850), no BSI sensor, less features like the new focus stacking,...)

Video camera = horribly not efficient codec, super high video file size for 1.7 crop (not S35 actually) and basically no video specs at all VS let's say a GH5. 

All that for a premium price tag. 

 

Anyone in this word who does not own any lens, I see 0 reason to buy a Canon 5D when looking to get FF. If you are going to shoot stills you buy the D850, if video only probably something like GH5 or A7SII and if you shoot both you will probably go to Sony. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly does a horribly "non efficient codec" entail? I mean video gets recorded, right? And it's a 4:22 codec that's easily editable on most computers, and usually the motion cadence looks great.

Okay so a 1.7 crop isn't exactly S35 but it's closer than 2x or 2.4x or 2.88x. And with the crop, a bunch of aps-c lens options open up.

I don't care about the this camera is better than that camera game. Each camera is unique to itself and none of them are perfect, but I do think the 5D4 gets a little more hatred than deserved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, mercer said:

I don't understand all of the hatred for the 5D Mark IV and its mjpeg codec?

Me either!  I remember when I first joined this forum everyone was looking forward to the next GH camera with a higher bit-rate.  What will the GH5 do now, 400?  Years ago, a couple of posters would say something along the line of, "The C100 has a great image so I don't care about bits or CODECs."  I was watching "Abstract" on Netflix a while back and the Roku was buggy so showing the bitrate, it hovered around 19mbits.  They're shooting Red Epic Dragons with anamorphic Primes, RAW I'd assume, 16 gig a minute..  But in the end, all I see is 19mbits.  So the question is, if a camera can give you 19mbits a second and it LOOKs like "Abstract" what difference does it make how many megabits are recorded in the forest? ;)


Anyway, mjpeg is the "RAW" version of jpeg compression.  It is frame by frame, unlike video CODECs that calculate compression through a series of frames.  That is, mjpeg is the camera's BEST stills compression technology at 24 or 30 frames a second.  Why wouldn't one want that?  I mean how can you say that's bad and the 400mbits nonsense (sorry) of the GH5 is good?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, maxotics said:

In video, NOTHING BEATS sensors with fat pixels (in a 4K space), like the Canon Cinema line or Sony A7S.

there's a happy compromise though which NX1 users can tell you about :)  For what I do 24-28MP would be more than enough for stills. 

Any canon still shooters here should try to borrow a d800/810/850 and shoot raw for a couple of days. I went from canon to nikon and it totally changed the way I shoot. Exposing for the highlights and not worrying too much about the shadows... knowing the deepest shadows would be a purple banded mush.  If you know shoot in high dynamic range situations its no biggee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael1 said:

I wasn't expecting GH5 level of video features on the D850.  Let's face it, the GH5 is nothing short of a technological marvel.  However, I was happy to see "no crop" 4K on the D850.  Hallelujah!  Canon appears to purposely cripple their DSLRs for video.  Crop on the 5D Mk IV 4K.  No 4K at all on the brand new 6D Mk II.  At least Nikon is finally pushing ahead.  Focus peaking and slo-mo on 1080p is nice, although it would be nice to have that on 4K.  Nikon's codec is very good, and the colors are good.  I'm anxious to see some samples.

Canon are not "crippling" their cameras on purpose, the reason for the absence of those features is the limitations of the processors in the cameras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect all of the crippling in the D850 video is what you get when you rely on Sony for your sensors. I imagine Nikon have some contract that allows them to use Sonys latest sensor tech but they aren't allowed to provide certain features like peaking in 4K for a period of time. If you produced you own sensors or brought them from someone else like BM does then it makes no sense to hold back unless you are protecting your cinema camera range or are engineering limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, wolf33d said:

Stills camera = 100 times less good than D850 (less dynamic range, less mpx, less good AF system ( and -4ev on the D850), no BSI sensor, less features like the new focus stacking,...)

Video camera = horribly not efficient codec, super high video file size for 1.7 crop (not S35 actually) and basically no video specs at all VS let's say a GH5. 

All that for a premium price tag. 

 

Anyone in this word who does not own any lens, I see 0 reason to buy a Canon 5D when looking to get FF. If you are going to shoot stills you buy the D850, if video only probably something like GH5 or A7SII and if you shoot both you will probably go to Sony. 

Sorry but this sounds like a very biased anti-Canon stance which indeed seems to be a growing trend around here.

The 5D4 is certainly not "100 times less good than D850". You cannot omit the advantage of Dual Pixel AF both for video and stills (when shooting LV).

A camera system is also more than paper specs, you've got a bunch of subjective factors to consider as well such as ergonomics, lens choice, menus, weight, color science etc..

Build quality & reliability has also been an issue with Nikon as of late with numerous recalls on their bodies. Mainly due to so much part outsourcing whereas Canon is all in-house and Made in Japan. This is a major point for professionals. (My D750 being recalled and leaving me without a camera for 3 weeks and losing work because of it was the final straw with me switching from Nikon to Canon.)

Besides not everyone needs/wants a 46MP camera and the huge files associated with that. 

As for the GH5 & A7S2 they also have their flaws, mainly terrible AF and for stills are way inferior to the 5D4.

5 hours ago, mercer said:

What exactly does a horribly "non efficient codec" entail? I mean video gets recorded, right? And it's a 4:22 codec that's easily editable on most computers, and usually the motion cadence looks great.

Okay so a 1.7 crop isn't exactly S35 but it's closer than 2x or 2.4x or 2.88x. And with the crop, a bunch of aps-c lens options open up.

I don't care about the this camera is better than that camera game. Each camera is unique to itself and none of them are perfect, but I do think the 5D4 gets a little more hatred than deserved.

By non efficient people mean the 500mbps file size which is huge for most. Also it isn't "easy editable on most computers" my €3000 2017 Macbook struggles with the files.

The upside though which indeed many seem to conveniently forget is that the codec is 422 and that the footage contains tons of information and simply looks great: thick & juicy image quality with tons of gradibility and filmic motion cadence. Like stated above it does feel like the closest to RAW. 

I also feel the 5D4 gets a ton of hate when things like MJPEG never seemed to be an issue for these same people on the 1DC & 1DXII..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mercer said:

I don't understand all of the hatred for the 5D Mark IV and its mjpeg codec?

It's a 4:22, all-i video codec that is easily editable on most computers, but it has big file sizes. ProRes has big file sizes. Raw has big file sizes. The GH5, after the update, will have big file sizes.

Because MJPEG generates huge files size which is a nightmare to manage plus you must have a lot of expensive memory cards on the field. All that for no benefits unlike ProRes which is usually associated with 10bits video, thus a massive quality gain over 8 bits MJEPG. Same logic for Raw. The GH5 you can still choose what you want (150 or 400mbps).

5 hours ago, maxotics said:

Anyway, mjpeg is the "RAW" version of jpeg compression.  It is frame by frame, unlike video CODECs that calculate compression through a series of frames.  That is, mjpeg is the camera's BEST stills compression technology at 24 or 30 frames a second.  Why wouldn't one want that?  I mean how can you say that's bad and the 400mbits nonsense (sorry) of the GH5 is good?

 

 

No, MJPEG is just inefficient crap. No quality gain, it's still 8 bits. Just huge 8 bits files. MJPEG is like having the issue of (small) raw without the quality of it.
Honestly I'm not that existed about the All-I 400mbps neither but at least I can choose which mode I want on the GH5.

3 hours ago, tugela said:

Canon are not "crippling" their cameras on purpose, the reason for the absence of those features is the limitations of the processors in the cameras.

No, they do cripple on purpose. Magic Lantern proves that the hardware is capable of so much more:

http://www.eoshd.com/2017/06/enabling-10bit-raw-video-mini-canon-100d/

http://www.eoshd.com/2017/06/magic-lantern-raw-video-current-camera-capabilities-updated-2017/

56 minutes ago, Django said:

Sorry but this sounds like a very biased anti-Canon stance which indeed seems to be a growing trend around here.

You cannot omit the advantage of Dual Pixel AF both for video and stills (when shooting LV).
Besides not everyone needs/wants a 46MP camera and the huge files associated with that. 
I also feel the 5D4 gets a ton of hate when things like MJPEG never seemed to be an issue for these same people on the 1DC & 1DXII..

You are right, many things are good with canon which is why I'm very disappointed by the ridiculous level of crippling.

DPAF works great but what is the point when the video "quality" is so bad and crippled ? I can work around a bad AF via manual and/or peaking but I cannot fix 1.74x crop, moire, rolling shutter and bad DR.

The D850 has a 25MP mode. Not sure about the quality though.

When the 1DC was announced in 2012, MJPEG was kind of acceptable at the time for the first 4K DSLR. Not anymore. As for the 1Dx2 at least it has 4k60 and way less crop than the 5D4 which kind of compensate for the MJPEG. But Canon couldn't help to only implement LOG on the 5D4 and not on the 1Dx2, go figure...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much undiluted fraff posted in here with regards to canon and mjpeg codec. It makes you wonder if these people have actually used these in real life situations.

people are happy to shoot raw via magic lantern, spend hours in post, only to end up exporting at h.264, 8bit on to youtube. Yet, they want to knock the mjpeg format, which is significantly less hassle to process.

I still shoot with a 1dc 4k mjpeg format and I am yet to see a competitor dslr/mirrorless that offers similar motion cadence, color science and detail with superior spec on paper.

If the Gh5 answers all questions for dslr shooters, why are they still out here hunting for other competitors to give them sometging similar on paper?

Stop worrying about codecs, all these cameras are capable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Dunjoye said:

So much undiluted fraff posted in here with regards to canon and mjpeg codec. It makes you wonder if these people have actually used these in real life situations.

It really is weird. I can immediately come up with three really great plusses for the mjpeg codec. Which I've mentioned several times but people just gloss over.

+ Very light compression (no motion artifacts, noise & grain kept intact instead of becoming a blurry mess)

+ 4:2:2

+ It looks great (better than the a7s/r series shitty codec)

+ You don't need an external recorder at all as the codec already gives all the plusses an external recorder would give in for example the a7s. I have a friend who records with the a7sII with an external recorder and it is a hazzle with filesizes as big as the mjpeg files with no real benefits when compared.

The only downside is the filesizes. But that's really the only downside. From that we suddenly go into "Canon is 100x worse than Nikon". Like what in the f? Have people used these cameras at all or just go mad when typing on the internet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mercer said:

What exactly does a horribly "non efficient codec" entail? I mean video gets recorded, right? And it's a 4:22 codec that's easily editable on most computers, and usually the motion cadence looks great.

Okay so a 1.7 crop isn't exactly S35 but it's closer than 2x or 2.4x or 2.88x. And with the crop, a bunch of aps-c lens options open up.

I don't care about the this camera is better than that camera game. Each camera is unique to itself and none of them are perfect, but I do think the 5D4 gets a little more hatred than deserved.

The crop factor is actually 1,75x in UHD (16:9 aspect ratio) - just horrible (an nod, the APS-C lenses do not work on the EF mount, you're stuck with FF glass on a huge crop)! The codec is very inefficient, the "4K" image (more like 2,5K actually) is very soft, high ISO is worst than on the Gh5 (in video mode), FHD is like any other Canon DSLR a pour 720p resolution full of moire and aliasing (the only exception was the 5D mk3 which was even softer). It has 0 advanced video controls but hey, Canon "must be praised" for it's dual pixel AF, to do exactly what with it if the image quality is so pour?!

The 5D mk4 deserves all the hatred, it is an expensive embarrassment video wise!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hmcindie said:

The only downside is the filesizes. But that's really the only downside. From that we suddenly go into "Canon is 100x worse than Nikon". Like what in the f? Have people used these cameras at all or just go mad when typing on the internet?

Nobody said that the 5Div was worse than the D850 just because of the MJPEG codec. But when you stack the cameras up together in terms of both video and stills features (because let's face it, no-one buys a DSLR just to shoot video with these days), the D850 has higher stills resolution, better dynamic range, higher-quality video with less of a crop factor and a more efficient codec, a slightly faster shooting rate, an articulating screen, better autofocus and better battery life. The only advantages that the 5Div appears to have are DPAF, and arguably using CF memory cards (which is a less expensive and more readily available format) instead of XQD. And they're both the same price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...